Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Aardwolf wrote:So if you are questioning the SOHO mission what specifically are the problems or errors in their observations? Obviously you have spotted something. What is it?

I don't pretend to know the assumptions upon which the SOHO mission based their calculations to achieve such astronomical speeds. I suspect the basic assumption is how to determine parallax to achieve the largest distances between heavenly bodies.

Aardwolf wrote:Crikey, how old are you?

Ancient!!!

Aardwolf wrote: jtb wrote: Now we know that it [Earth] travels in a spiral path at about 2,000,000 mph and no one questions that "fact".

Aardwolf wrote:Why should we.

Aardwolf, we need to question everything to come to the knowledge of the truth. Some people are very close minded. For example, when working on my Master's, one of my professors wrote on every paper I submitted: "B+ Very well written, but I want your opinion." Criptic for I'll give you an A if you will give me your opinion. I regurgitated everything he said because I perceived that he was close minded and I wanted to graduate. On my last paper I gave my opinion and he wrote: "I'd flunk you but I don't want you in my class again." Don't ever let your skolling interfere with your education.

nick c wrote:In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale.

Unless our sun is the center of the rotating Milky Way and the universe, planetary orbits become very complicated. Even if our sun was traveling in a straight line, Earth's orbit would be chaotic, constantly accelerating and decelerating to maintain a nearly circular orbit. Earth would have to accelerate beyond the sun's velocity to pass in front of it then decelerate when on the other side. Imagine what that would do to the lunar orbit. Now imagine what the orbits would be like with the sun traveling in a spiral path at nearly 2,000,000 mph.

nick c wrote:In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale.

Unless our sun is the center of the rotating Milky Way and the universe, planetary orbits become very complicated. Even if our sun was traveling in a straight line, Earth's orbit would be chaotic, constantly accelerating and decelerating to maintain a nearly circular orbit. Earth would have to accelerate beyond the sun's velocity to pass in front of it then decelerate when on the other side. Imagine what that would do to the lunar orbit. Now imagine what the orbits would be like with the sun traveling in a spiral path at nearly 2,000,000 mph.

Aardwolf wrote:So if you are questioning the SOHO mission what specifically are the problems or errors in their observations? Obviously you have spotted something. What is it?

I don't pretend to know the assumptions upon which the SOHO mission based their calculations to achieve such astronomical speeds. I suspect the basic assumption is how to determine parallax to achieve the largest distances between heavenly bodies.

It's in our solar system and there's no controversy about the distance to our sun nor how we measure the speed of an object passing it. But I'm confused because you say question everything yet you're not even attempting to research SOHO while at the same time casting doubt on it's measurements. Are you going bother to find out if it has problems and/or falsehoods?

jtb wrote:

Aardwolf wrote: jtb wrote: Now we know that it [Earth] travels in a spiral path at about 2,000,000 mph and no one questions that "fact".

Aardwolf wrote:Why should we.

Aardwolf, we need to question everything to come to the knowledge of the truth. Some people are very close minded.

Yet you've already made your mind up about SOHO but haven't done any research to find out any knowledge about the truth of SOHO. Are you going to bother or are you worried it will prove your beliefs to be without foundation and make it clear that the only one posting here with a closed mind is you.

nick c wrote:In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his work An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, correctly speculated that the Milky Way might be a body of a huge number of stars held together by gravitational forces rotating about a Galactic Center, akin to the solar system but on a much larger scale.

Unless our sun is the center of the rotating Milky Way and the universe, planetary orbits become very complicated. Even if our sun was traveling in a straight line, Earth's orbit would be chaotic, constantly accelerating and decelerating to maintain a nearly circular orbit. Earth would have to accelerate beyond the sun's velocity to pass in front of it then decelerate when on the other side. Imagine what that would do to the lunar orbit. Now imagine what the orbits would be like with the sun traveling in a spiral path at nearly 2,000,000 mph.

What about other stars with planets orbiting them? All that your absurd "logic" indicates is that every sun must be the centre of the universe as they would have exaclty the same "complications".

What you continually fail to appreciate is that 2 objects travelling though empty frictionless space at 2,000,000 mph simply have no local reference or knowledge of the fact they are travelling at any speed at all.

Aardwolf wrote:It's [SOHO] in our solar system and there's no controversy about the distance to our sun nor how we measure the speed of an object passing it. But I'm confused because you say question everything yet you're not even attempting to research SOHO while at the same time casting doubt on it's measurements. Are you going bother to find out if it has problems and/or falsehoods?

Aardwolf, there are controversies about the distance to the sun which I outlined very early in this thread concerning how parallax is determined. Velocity = distance / time in relation to a "frame of reference", in this case the sun. If the distance to the sun is in question, so is velocity of objects passing by it. Since we can't stretch a tape measure to the sun, all we can do is give it our best guess. What has convinced you that the sun is 93,000,000 miles from Earth and what are the assumptions used to determine this distance?

Aardwolf wrote:What you continually fail to appreciate is that 2 objects travelling though empty frictionless space at 2,000,000 mph simply have no local reference or knowledge of the fact they are travelling at any speed at all.

Velocity can't be determined without a "frame of reference", or starting point.

Pheww ...30 pages on this ...forgive me if I don't read them all ...here's my take on the question ...

Only one way to tell if something is rotating ... is the expected gravitational force diminished by centrifugal force anywhere on it's surface by determining this we can tell if a body in space is rotating and if so where the axis is.

This begs the question if we have a body that we can determine is not rotating what is it aligned with ? Presumably the combined masses of all there is , this must determine the frame of reference ?

I'm sure someone has already mentioned the moon does not perfectly keep one face towards the earth , but oscillates slightly ....7 degrees I think.

Earth is an observation point like a seat in the bleachers of a race track. Velocity of the two objects in space is determined by known distance and time traveled between 2 points. The frame of reference would be the starting point. Since we can't physically measure distance in space, it is based on assumptions. What are the assumptions used to determine distance in space and what are the beginning and ending points in question?

I started this thread because the "Physics Forum" website blocked a guy with the same question who offered solid evidence that the moon does not rotate and I initially used some of his arguments. I welcome constructive criticism because I know that I can be very wrong and I am looking for truth; not to win arguments. I learned some very important life lessons these several years: Physical sciences deal with real physical objects; metaphysical, or the mind; with concepts. Truth is achieved when mental concepts match reality. The invisible things of this world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.

An axis is an imaginary axle used to determine truth. As such, an axis must operate like a real axle to match reality. A real axle is always physically attached to something: center of orbit or some external force. If attached to the center of orbit, a point on the axle is constantly facing the direction of motion and is perpendicular to the center of orbit. If a point on the mounted object is continually aligned with a point on an orbiting axle, the object is rotating about the center of orbit; not on its axle.

If the orbiting axle is attached to some external force (your arm could be this external force holding a pencil as an axle), and the mounted object is continually facing the center of orbit, it indeed is rotating about the axle.

You can't have it both ways. The moon can't be attached to Earth by gravity and be rotating on its axis (axle) when the same side is always facing Earth. Is the moon's axle attached to Earth or to some external force? I don't know. Haven't gotten that far yet, but this website is about the electric universe.

jtb,If You draw a line from one side of the sun to the opposite side of the earth, and do that both sides.Here lies the PINCH point where the moon is created.

The external such flows between all of the planets and countless other such fields are also responsible for the creation of mass in 3D, and each one offers up a slight variation in the symbiotic relationship between Earth and the sun, hence the variations encountered.

Universe only operates due to this slight out of balance between spin fields.

The moon is the great clue, well done for keeping cool against the vast majorities belief system.Forgive them , for they could not know.

It is to this sites eternal credit that it enables mad ideas and new insights to be aired.Kevin

No-thing in space is moving.Consciousness ( the aether) flows at super luminal rate.It does so in phase conjugate fashion fractionally out of balance, hence and eternal chase.

All 3D creation switch relative to the variations of these flows, and We call this TIME.No-thing actually moves, there is no fictional gravity.All is within it's local field of consciousness, and it is the field that displaces in universe, the created mass simply reacts.To ourselves as observers on the surface of this planet We are fooled by our limited senses, and absolutely fooled since dropping the aether from existence.

jtb wrote:....You can't have it both ways. The moon can't be attached to Earth by gravity and be rotating on its axis (axle) when the same side is always facing Earth. Is the moon's axle attached to Earth or to some external force? I don't know. Haven't gotten that far yet, but this website is about the electric universe.

I don't understand the quandary , jtb .... you cannot deny the moon always presents it's same face to earth ... we see the same craters ... it's a fact ...

From this logic decrees it rotates about every 27 days ... end of story.

If you can't get this you have to admit it's a deficiency in your own understanding...study the subject more.

oz93666 wrote:I don't understand the quandary , jtb .... you cannot deny the moon always presents it's same face to earth ... we see the same craters ... it's a fact ... From this logic decrees it rotates about every 27 days ... end of story.

Moon rotates about its center of orbit; not its axis. A horse on a merry-go-round rotates about its center of orbit; not the pole through its back. Reality.

oz93666 wrote:I don't understand the quandary , jtb .... you cannot deny the moon always presents it's same face to earth ... we see the same craters ... it's a fact ... From this logic decrees it rotates about every 27 days ... end of story.

Moon rotates about its center of orbit; not its axis. A horse on a merry-go-round rotates about its center of orbit; not the pole through its back. Reality.

Well OK , we agree it's not a simple rotation , it's a rotation with an orbit added in , but if you were living on the moon you would see the stars and the sun rotate around and back to the same place every 27 days .

If you measured the gravity at the equator it would be less because of the centrifugal force from this rotation ...this is how rotation is defined ...

I think if you stayed on the moon a while , and saw the sun move slowly in the sky back to the same position after 27 days , you'd be convinced.